UMAR DIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court's Intra-Court Appeal Bench. The core legal questions involve the necessity of impleading an affected party who was the original informer, the retrospective effect of legislation conferring vested rights on informers, and the application of statutory provisions governing settlement and rehabilitation lands. The Court held that the petition merits leave to appeal, noting that the respondent failed to implead the petitioner Umar Din in the High Court proceedings despite objections, that Act XXXVI of 1974 operates with retrospective effect to vest rights in informers, and that Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act prima facie govern the matter without leaving scope for discretionary interference by the Appeal Bench. The key principle laid down is that necessary parties must be impleaded in constitutional proceedings and that statutory provisions governing land settlement must be strictly applied according to their retrospective and substantive import.
- Whether an informer possessing vested rights under Act XXXVI of 1974 is a necessary party in constitutional proceedings?
- Does Act XXXVI of 1974 possess retrospective effect to clothe an informer with vested rights?
- Whether Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act leave scope for discretionary exercise by the Appeal Bench?
- Act XXXVI of 1974
- Section 10, Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act
- Section 11, Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--This petition merits leave to appeal for the following reasons:
(i) Ghulam Rasul respondent No,4 was writ petitioner in the High Court and the appellant in Intra- Court Appeal. In paras. 4 and 5 of Constitutional petition he specifically mentioned that he was aggrieved by the act of informer Umar Din and the adjudication on informer's application. He impleaded Umar Din before Chief Settlement Commissioner but in none of the proceedings before the High Court in spite of an objection taken by Umar Din.
(ii) Act XXXVI of 1974 having a retrospective effect clothes an informer with vested rights.
(iii) Sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act prima facie governed the matter leaving no scope for exercise of the discretion in the matter leaving no scope for the Appeal Bench of the High Court on considerations taken note of in para. 6.
2. ' Security Rupees five thousand. No alienation of land meanwhile.